Adaptation Planning - mtc.ca.gov€¦ · Adaptation planning is not part of the Federal Highway...

Adaptation Planning 7.0

This page intentionally left blank.

Adapting to Rising Tides: Transportation Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Pilot Project 7-1

7 Adaptation Planning

7.1 IntroductionChapter 6 identifies the vulnerability and risk level of the selected representative transportation assetsthat are exposed to inundation under different sea level rise (SLR) scenarios. The subsequent task is toconsider what can be done to mitigate these risks. This chapter explores preliminary ideas andpossibilities for adapting to SLR in the pilot project area. Adaptation planning is not part of the FederalHighway Administration conceptual model; however, it is the essential next step in the process.

Section 7.2 reviews a list of potential adaptation measures, some of which were identified throughprevious planning efforts, including preparation of San Francisco Bay: Preparing for the Next Level(BCDC 2009). Section 7.3 provides suggestions on how to use information collected on the risk profilesand additional evaluation criteria to help select adaptation measures. Based on this information, Section7.4 presents a potential range of near-term and longer term adaptation options for two example assets –the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (which in this review focuses on the bridge touchdown and tollplaza, R-12) and the Oakland Jack London Square Amtrak Station (T-05). This chapter concludes byrecommending next steps for developing an approach to adapting transportation infrastructure to SLR.Consultation with the organizations involved in the Shoreline Asset and Transportation Assetsubcommittees would be an essential part of the process.

Note that the adaptation measures presented in this chapter provide a range of possible solutions basedonly on the information available to the project team. The outcomes of this chapter are not intended torepresent specific adaptation measures for the two example assets but rather to identify a range ofpotential adaptation measures to be further investigated as part of the adaptation planning phase of theART project.

7.2 Climate Change Adaptation MeasuresThe risk assessment exercise described in Chapter 6 shows that adapting transportation infrastructure torising sea levels will be required to maintain the level of service expected within the Alameda Countysubregion. San Francisco Bay sea levels have already risen by 7 inches (California Natural ResourcesAgency 2009) in the past century and will continue to rise, and rising tides are already affecting the BayArea’s transportation network. Not adapting to these changing circumstances will likely result in largeeconomic and social impacts to the region. By taking a proactive approach, various agencies around thebay will allow the region to remain safe and competitive.

Key questions to answer at the outset of adaptation planning are: “What is an acceptable impact to theregion, and what adaptation measures are needed to achieve this?” In relation to transportation, thesequestions lead to establishing the minimum level of service that must be provided by the road and railnetworks. Under present-day conditions, agencies are likely to require at least the same or a better levelof service and the current (or better) level of flood protection. These questions were not addressed for thetwo example assets reviewed for this project, but it would be a key question in the development of anadaptation strategy.

For this project, adaptation measures have been organized into several categories to structure thediscussion on how to select the most appropriate adaptation measures for any given asset – structuraland nonstructural measures, and asset-specific and regional (or non asset specific) measures. Thesecategories can be defined as follows:

Structural Adaptation Measures - are physical measures, such as constructing levees, flood walls,and wetlands or relocating an asset, that mitigate the flooding impacts of SLR.

7-2 Technical Report

Nonstructural Adaptation Measures - are non physical measures that can include changing policiesand regulations (e.g., new building codes, zoning requirements like setbacks or buffer zones),updating design guidance, or providing education and community outreach to increase awarenessand make communities more resilient. Nonstructural measures could also include rerouting traffic ortemporarily closing infrastructure.

Asset-Specific Adaptation Measures - are measures that are directly related to adapting thetransportation asset to SLR impacts.

Regional Adaptation Measures –are measures that may protect more than one transportation assetand assets in other sectors (e.g., residential, commerce, recreation) in the same area.

Both structural and nonstructural measures are essential for adaptation planning and in many instances,the two complement one another, as the nonstructural measure enables implementation of the structuralmeasure.

In addition, the timing of implementation of adaptation measures can be used as an organizing principleto identify the most appropriate point of intervention in an asset’s life cycle for implementation ofadaptation measures. Opportunistic adaptation measures are those that can be made during regularlyscheduled maintenance or end-of-life-cycle replacement. Proactive adaptation measures are those thatare implemented in anticipation of a climate change stressor—in this case, SLR—independent of otheractivities (e.g., elevating a road before the end of its life cycle to better protect it from rising tides).Consideration of the various categories of adaptation measures and their points of interventions shapedthe discussion on conducting an initial screening of appropriate adaptation measures. It should be notedthat adaptation measures typically fall into multiple categories, meaning that an asset-specific measurecan be, for example, structural in nature as well as opportunistic.

provides an overview of adaptation measures that were found to be potentially applicable for theAlameda County subregion. These measures represent a matrix of structural and nonstructural, andasset-specific and regional adaptation measures. Most of the measures could be implemented as eitheropportunistic or proactive measures. Note that this table should not be considered an exhaustive list ofthe potential adaptation options.

Table 7.1 Potential Adaptation Measures Applicable to Alameda CountyAsset-specific Regional

Nonstructural - Requiring temporary closure (road,tunnel, bridge)

- Rerouting traffic and transit – providealternative route to reach samedestination

- Providing alternative mode oftransportation (e.g. ferry instead ofbridge)

- Abandoning the asset and not replacingit

- Developing new building and designcodes for transportation assets

- Revising transportation planningguidance and policy

- Increasing stakeholder and communityawareness and input

- Increasing technical knowledge andcapacity in relevant agencies

- Revising land use planning guidanceand policy making, including zoningoverlays

- Developing new and innovativepartnerships – to research, fund, andimplement climate change adaptationplanning.


Asset-specific RegionalStructural - Providing flood/water proofing to better

withstand flooding (tunnel entrances,raising electronics within building)

- Improving drainage/foundations to retainor drain floodwater

- Designing floating structure (roads, ferryterminals) to accommodate futurechanges in sea level

- Using new materials with increaseddurability to sustain periods ofinundation

- Raising the asset (road, railroad tracks,tunnel entrance, bridge on ramp, facility,freeway)

- Moving the asset – relocate or rebuildan asset to a location at higher elevationoutside the floodplain

Barriers- Erecting a closure dam (permanent;

shorten the line of defense) (e.g.,connect Alameda Island to mainland)

- Installing a storm surge/tidal barrier(moveable) to close off parts of the bayduring high-water events

Levees- Raising existing levees- Strengthening existing levees (e.g.,

overtopping resistant)- Incorporating new technology into

levees (smart/Intelligent levees), whichinclude flood early warning systems andsensors in levees

- Building a new levee (e.g., ring levees)- Building a “super levee” - one so wide it

cannot be breached (e.g., ½ mile wide)- Designing a levee in a dune (levee is

essentially hidden by a dune, which canbecome an amenity)

- Designing a levee in a boulevard (leveeis hidden by a part of the public realm,such as a boulevard)

Walls- Raising the height of a permanent

sea/flood wall- Building a new permanent sea/flood wall- Installing a demountable floodwall- Incorporating buildings (e.g., houses,

office buildings, or parking structures) asflood protection features (urbanwaterfront)

Land Reclamation- Developing a port or land extension,

which will then provide flood protectionfor the region

- Developing new or existing wetlands todissipate wave energy at the shoreline

- Providing foreshore beach nourishmentto dissipate wave energy before or atthe shoreline

- Building with nature (use of the naturalforces of streams and currents tostrengthen the shoreline) (e.g., use ofsediment for wetland or beach accretionfor flood protection)

Source: Preparing for the Next Level, 2009; California Climate Adaptation Strategy, 2009; and Adaptation Toolkit:Sea Level Rise and Coastal Land Use, 2011.


Figure 7.1 through Figure 7.8 illustrate several of the adaption measures listed in Table 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Levee Construction

Figure 7.2 Freeway On Top Of A Levee

Figure 7.3 Rendering Of Levee Placed Out Into The Bay AndWetland Development Inboard of The Levee


Figure 7.4 Demountable Floodwall Along Urban Waterfront

Figure 7.5 Glass Wave Overtopping Wall On A Levee

Figure 7.6 Raising Of Existing Levee


Figure 7.7 Residential Development As Flood Protection Barrier

Figure 7.8 Artist Impression Of Levee Combined With Urban Functions

7.3 Methodology to Analyze and Use RiskProfiles for Adaptation Planning

7.3.1 EVALUATION OF RISK PROFILESThe information presented in the risk profiles (Appendix C) provides valuable information to helpunderstand the most appropriate adaptation measure for a particular transportation asset. Transportationassets with the highest risk ratings should be addressed first, as the impacts of SLR are likely to occursooner, and the consequences are high relative to other assets. The information in the risk profile can beassessed in six steps:

1.Exposure – How would the transportation asset be affected by inundation at midcentury, and whatwould the impacts be at the end of the century (for this example, we have used the 16-inch and 55-inch 100-year stillwater elevation [SWEL] scenarios)? For example:

a. If the inundation would be less than 1 foot and would occur only during an extreme weatherevent, then improved drainage, reinforced foundations, temporary closure, or ademountable flood wall may be appropriate.

b. If the inundation would be permanent and more than 1 foot, then raising the asset, buildinga flood protection structure, or abandonment of the asset may be appropriate.

2.Sensitivity – What characteristics of the asset can be used to understand its sensitivity to climatechange stressors? For example:


a. If the asset is in poor condition, not yet seismically upgraded, or near the end of its servicelife, opportunistic measures should be taken to raise or reroute the asset, upgrade it withnew materials, or waterproof it.

b. If the sensitivity of an asset can be reduced, the likelihood of occurrence of a climatechange impact to this asset can also be reduced. Often, reducing sensitivity in this sensecan offer a low cost and fast (interim) adaptation solution.

3.Adaptive capacity – How does adaptive capacity affect the vulnerability of the asset, and can this beused as part of an adaptation strategy? For example:

a. If use of the asset can be wholly or partially rerouted, then structural measures couldpotentially be avoided; temporary closure could be acceptable in the short term.

4.Consequence rating – What are the consequences if this asset is temporarily or permanently out ofuse? What is its importance to the subregion or Bay Area or beyond? Assets with high consequenceratings should be prioritized for adaptation planning.

a. If the asset has a high consequence rating, then temporary or partial closure is unlikely tobe acceptable; an asset with a low consequence rating, however, could likely betemporarily or partially closed.

5.Overtopping potential – Which stretches of shoreline would be overtopped and therefore, would beresponsible for inundation of the asset? (An explanation of overtopping is presented in Chapter 4.)For example:

a. If a short length of shoreline is overtopped, this segment alone could be raised.b. If a long length of shoreline is overtopped, a major rebuild, raise, or strengthening of the

entire shoreline may be required.6.Shoreline systems – Are there other assets protected by the same shoreline system, and what type of

shoreline category does the system consist of? (Descriptions and location of the different shorelineassets are presented in Chapter 2.) For example:

a. If more than one system or asset is involved, more jurisdictions may need to be involved,and more complex solutions and planning may be required.

Table D1 in Appendix D provides additional examples of how to interpret the information in the riskprofiles to inform decisions about potential adaptation measures.

7.3.2 USE OF EVALUATION CRITERIAAfter going through these six steps, decision makers can evaluate the adaptation measures (presented inTable 7.1) that may be suitable to reduce the risk of inundation from SLR and the level of service that theadaptation measures will facilitate.

In addition to the categories of adaptation measures, Error! Reference source not found.a range ofcriteria and considerations should be used to evaluate the different adaptation measures, presented inError! Reference source not found.. These criteria have been grouped according to the lenses ofeconomy, ecology, equity, and governance, defined in the larger Adapting to Rising Tides project:

Equity – Addresses the effects on communities and the services on which they rely, with specificattention to disproportionate impacts due to existing inequalities.

Economy – Addresses the economic values that may be affected, such as costs ofphysical/infrastructure damages or lost revenues during periods of recovery.

Ecology – Describes the environmental values that may be affected, including ecosystem functionand services and species biodiversity.

Governance – Addresses factors such as ownership, management responsibilities, jurisdiction,mandates, and organizational structure that influence vulnerability and resilience.


Table 7.2 Criteria for Helping Selection of Adaptation Measures

Economy Ecology- Protection of functionality – Although the continued

use of the asset may be limited, the function of thesystem as a whole can be protected if other facilities(e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART] or ferries,alternative routes) can provide the same or similarfunctionality.

- Protection of asset – When the asset is protected,the asset could still be used.

- Economic benefit – Does the improved floodprotection/climate resiliency spur new investment orgrowth?

- Cost and time to build – What are the time and costsassociated with implementing the adaptationmeasures?

- Operation and maintenance cost – What are theoperation and maintenance costs?

- Spatial requirements – How much land is required toimplement the adaptation measure?

- Adaptability – Can an adaptation measure bedesigned to adapt to future climatic changes aslikelihood increases or new technologies becomeavailable?

- Applicability in time – Which measures areappropriate for the midterm and which for the longerterm, given different SLR scenarios?

- Ecological value – Does the adaptation measureprovide benefits to the natural environment throughspecies or habitat protection?

- Ecological function – Does the adaptation measureimprove ecological function (e.g., wetland vs. floodwall)?

- Sustainability (longevity) – Do the differentadaptation measures provide long-term sustainablesolutions (e.g., next 50, 100, or 200 years)?

- Sustainability (materials) – Are the materials usedfor the adaptation measure environmentallysustainable?

- Environmental impacts – What are theenvironmental impacts of implementing theadaptation measure, can they be mitigated, and dothey reduce green house gas emissions?

Equity Governance- Safety- does the adaptation measure enhance

public safety and security?

- Environmental justice – does the adaptationmeasure benefit underserved populations?

- Regional benefit – Is there a regional benefit to thelocal community selecting a specific adaptationmeasure (e.g., systems approach to protect theregion vs. asset-specific protection)?

- Awareness – Does the measure enhance publicawareness and technical knowledge about SLR?

- Public access and aesthetic importance – Can theadaptation measure be integrated into the natural orurban landscape so that it becomes an amenity and(for example) provides public access to theshoreline?

- Unintentional consequences – Are there beneficialor negative consequences to the surroundingcommunity or other assets by implementing thismeasure?

- Institutional (organizational) arrangements, includingjurisdiction – Are governmental bodies and currentpolicies and regulations equipped to ensure orfacilitate long-term planning and timelyimplementation of the adaptation measure?

- Funding – Which organization is providing thefunding for the adaptation measure, and are therefunds available?

- Public or private land – Which entity or individualowns the land, and how does this affectimplementation of the adaptation measure?

- Policies – Does the adaptation measure build onexisting policies, and do new policies allow formodifications as new climate change data/insightsbecome available?

- Development – does the adaptation measurefacilitate (undesired) development in low lying areas(through improving the flood protection level)?


Different weightings or rankings of importance can be applied to the criteria presented in Table 7.2. Forexample, more emphasis could be placed on the level of service an asset provides and itsimplementation cost (in the face of SLR). Whether to assign weightings to the criteria (or rankings ofimportance) is a determination to be made by transportation agencies. (Note that weightings were notassigned to the criteria for the example assets discussed in this chapter, but should be considered apotential approach by agencies when reviewing adaptation options for specific assets in the subregion.)

(Also note that the likelihood of climate change impacts occurring needs to be reviewed regularly, alongwith updates to regional climate modeling data, in case predictions regarding the depth and timing of SLRchange (from the 16 inches predicted for midcentury and the 55 inches predicted for the end of century).

7.4 Example AssetsThe two example assets selected to test the methodology presented in this chapter are the SanFrancisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, focusing on the bridge touchdown and toll plaza (R-12), and the OaklandJack London Square Amtrak Station (T-05). These two assets were selected because they represent twodifferent categories of transportation assets and are close to the shoreline. Assets close to the shorelinewere selected to avoid overlapping with other sectors (e.g., communities, land) being addressed in thelarger Adapting to Rising Tides project.

A range of adaptation measures can be considered from the options presented in Section 7.2 and theinformation provided by the risk profiles, as discussed in Section 7.3. The Project Management Team andthe Consultant Team held a joint work session to select potentially applicable measures looking atmidterm (16 inches + 100-year SWEL) and end-of-century (55 inches + 100-year SWEL) SLR scenariosfor the two example assets. This was an initial, qualitative assessment that will need further investigationto determine the real cost-effectiveness, applicability, and viability of proposed adaptation measures. Thestructural measures discussed in this session are further described in Sections 7.4.1. and 7.4.2. Due totime constraints, nonstructural adaptation measures were not discussed during the meeting, but anarrative with some suggested measures is provided in Section 7.4.3. Note that the adaptation measuresdescribed cannot be seen in isolation of one another— ultimately, a system consisting of a combination ofdifferent types of adaptation measures, both structural and nonstructural, will have to be developed toprotect against inundation from SLR.

7.4.1 SAN FRANCISCO–OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE

The San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge connects Alameda County with the City and County of SanFrancisco. For this assessment, the bridge touchdown on the Oakland side and toll plaza are considered.Also note that the Bay Bridge does not function in isolation and should be considered in relation to thefreeways it connects with.


A review of the risk profile identifies that:

1. The exposure is rated medium because the bridge would be inundated only under the 16 inches +100-year SWEL and 55 inches + 100-year SWEL SLR scenarios. However, under both scenarios,significant inundation could occur (2 and 5 feet) that could be exacerbated by wind wave effects.

2. The sensitivity of the asset is high because of the high level of use and very high liquefactionpotential (although the new span under construction is being built to current seismic standards).Given its high operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, opportunistic measures could beconsidered as part of scheduled maintenance and upgrades to the facility.

3. Some adaptive capacity is provided by the alternative routes of BART and ferries, but this is likelyinadequate for the volume of commuters and for goods movement. Given its limited adaptivecapacity, structural adaptation of either the asset or the region will be critical.

4. The consequence rating for this asset is high due to its high level of use and importance to theregion, limiting options for temporary or partial closure during inundation under the midcenturyscenario.

5. The bridge touchdown and toll plaza are protected by Shoreline System 2, which is a combinationof engineered shoreline protection and natural shoreline (wetlands). The overtopping potential atmidcentury and at the end of the century is quite high: 10,510 feet of shoreline would be overtoppedby midcentury at an average depth of 1.7 feet, and at the end of the century, more than 16,900 feetwould be overtopped at an average depth of 3.9 feet for the 16 inches + 100-year SWEL and 55inches + 100-year SWEL SLR scenarios, respectively. Asset-specific adaptation could, therefore,still have significant impacts on the region surrounding the asset. Other transportation assets thatare affected by overtopping of Shoreline System 2 include other parts of Interstate 80 (I-80), WestGrand Avenue, Mandela Parkway, Burma Road, 7th Street Highway and Railroad Pumps (55inches), and Union Pacific Martinez subdivision.

Table 7.3 provides an overview of potential adaptation measures for the San Francisco-Oakland BayBridge. These measures are described in more detail in the paragraphs below.

Table 7.3 Suggested Potential Adaptation Strategies for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay BridgeMidcentury End-of-Century

Asset-specific adaptation - Improve drainage- Retrofit – make waterproof- Raise touchdown and toll plaza

area- Partial closure

- Raise road surface- Build causeway

Regional adaptation (alongShoreline System 2)

- Create berm- Wetland restoration/ creation- Construct floodwall

- Build levee- Build floodwall- Wetland restoration/ creation

Nonstructural adaptation - Develop new building and designcodes

- Revise transportation planningguidance and policy

- Form multi-jurisdictionalpartnerships

- Continue implementation andrevision of nonstructuraladaptation measures as needed

ASSET-SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONNear-term and midterm asset-specific adaptation for the Bay Bridge touchdown and toll plaza seems tobe a viable option, as limited inundation will occur under the midcentury scenario. Minor modifications tothe asset can be made in an opportunistic manner during scheduled maintenance to mitigate for future


inundation to improve resilience to flooding. The following adaptation measures are considered for thislocation:

Improve drainage – The drainage system around the freeway and the toll plaza could be improved sothat when inundation occurs, there might be only partial closure of the roadway and, after astorm/high tide event, water would drain off the road surface quickly enough to minimize disruption.This measure can be considered “low regret” adaptation.

Retrofit – To minimize the consequences of temporary inundation for the physical infrastructure of theasset, retrofitting can be considered. For the toll plaza, this would require that water-sensitiveelements (such as wiring and electronics) be placed above a certain flood elevation. Entrances tobuildings, buildings themselves, and toll booths can be made flood resilient through water proofing sothat they can withstand temporary inundation. This measure would assume periodic partial ortemporary closure of the freeway. (The level of service required would determine whether thisadaptation response is considered adequate.)

Raise road surface – As part of regularly scheduled maintenance for the midcentury planning horizon,raising the road in areas identified as vulnerable to inundation could be considered.

Conduct partial or temporary closure – A nonstructural/management option during extreme eventscould be to close part or all parts of the freeway. (The level of service required would determinewhether this adaptation response is considered adequate.) It is unlikely that recurring closure wouldbe acceptable.

For the end-of-century scenario, minor modifications to the bridge touchdown and toll plaza would notlikely be adequate to address the projected inundation. Given the potential consequences of this impact,the following more drastic adaptation measures can be considered:

Raise road surface – Rather than raising the road during regularly scheduled maintenance, a moreproactive approach could address greater inundation levels. The entire freeway could be elevatedabove the end-of-century 100-year storm level. Although this is described as an asset-specificmeasure, it might also provide benefits to the region because the raised road could serve as a leveeprotecting West Oakland.

Build causeway – The freeway leading up to the Bay Bridge could be transformed into a causewaybridging the low-lying areas, similar to the Hayward–San Mateo Bridge that spans part of the bay. Itwould be very expensive, however, to accommodate a toll plaza on a causeway.

REGIONAL ADAPTATIONFor the midcentury scenario, with only minor modifications to the landscape, most of the bridgetouchdown, the toll plaza, and I-80 leading up to the bridge could be protected from inundation, whichwould also protect a wider area. Note that these adaptation measures would become part of a floodcontrol system that might extend beyond the immediate area to create a closed flood protection system:

Create berm – Along the perimeter of the freeway and the off- and on-ramps, a berm could beconstructed to keep rising tides back. With this measure, the drainage system of the freeway and tollplaza would need to be altered, and pumps might be needed to pump out stormwater. This bermcould be constructed such that it allows for modifications in the future to withstand greater SLR.

Support wetland growth – Wetlands are able to absorb wave action and can reduce flood elevationsat the asset. Wetlands are located along the north side of the toll plaza and I-80. If wetlands are ableto grow organically with SLR (through sediment deposition, for example) they provide a natural andattractive form of flood protection. Note that fringing wetlands can reduce the flooding only associatedwith waves. High tide and storm stillwater levels would still inundate the shoreline unimpeded. A


recent study by PRBO Conservation Science (PLoS 2011), however, indicates that it is unlikely thatBay Area marshes will be able to keep pace with anticipated SLR at the end of the century.

Construct floodwall – A small floodwall could be constructed along the perimeter of the freeway toprevent flooding and wave overtopping at the asset. A floodwall would impair the existing drainagesystem, which would therefore have to be modified as well (e.g., installation of pumps).

Regional adaptation at the end of the century would require greater interventions to deal with the potentialinundation scenarios. Without major interventions, it is unlikely that wetlands would be able to address a55-inch SLR scenario and would reduce the impacts of flooding associated only with waves.

Construct levees – A berm built at midcentury could be reconstructed as a levee. As discussed underasset-specific adaptation, an elevated freeway could also be built on top of a new levee, which wouldalso serve a regional flood protection function.

Construct floodwall – A flood wall built at midcentury could be strengthened and raised.

Support wetland growth/build wetlands – As stated earlier wetlands are able to absorb wave actionand can reduce flood elevations at the asset. It is unlikely that wetlands will accrete to the end ofcentury level of SLR. Therefore, wetland growth could be supported by beneficial use of dredgedmaterial. However, to provide proper flood protection, this measure likely should be integrated withthe construction of a levee or floodwall further inland.

NONSTRUCTURAL ADAPTATIONAs stated earlier, given the importance of this asset, temporary closure, rerouting traffic, using analternative mode of transportation or even abandoning the asset are not considered viable options fornon-structural adaptation measures. Measures specific to this asset include:

Changes to building codes and design guidance – As new designs and plans are made forconstruction, retrofitting, or maintenance, they should include guidance on how to adapt to SLR. Thisguidance can help enable the implementation of structural measures, such as improving drainage,raising the road surface, or making structures around the touchdown and toll plaza more resilient toflooding.

Modification of policies and planning guidelines – For proactive planning and to facilitate adaptation torising sea levels, existing policies for SLR and flood management for this asset should be reviewedand revised.

Multi-Jurisdictional Partnerships – Since areas inland of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridgepeninsula are vulnerable to flooding that originates at the shoreline of this facility, exploringpartnerships with the Port of Oakland, City of Oakland and City of Emeryville may facilitate cost-sharing or implementation of structural solutions needed to address vulnerabilities and risks identifiedin the risk profile. The Bay Bridge Peninsula is currently the subject of a collaborative planning effortbeing conducted by Caltrans, the Bay Area Toll Authority, the Port of Oakland, City of Oakland,BCDC, the East Bay Regional Park District and East Bay Municipal Utility District to facilitateredevelopment of the peninsula for a mix of uses. This partnership could expand its focus to addressadaptation solutions in conjunction with other planning.


7.4.2 OAKLAND JACK LONDON SQUARE AMTRAK STATION

The Oakland Jack London Square Amtrak Station is an at-grade, multi-modal facility on the CapitolCorridor. Although the risk profile assesses only the station and the passengers that pass through thestation, the Union Pacific Niles subdivision railroad track serving the station is also an important goodsmovement corridor for the Port of Oakland, and the tracks would be affected by inundation near thestation and at other locations in the subregion. Although the impacts to the station itself can be limited,the major concern is the inundation of railroad tracks both close to the station and at other locations in thesubregion.

A review of the risk profile identifies that:

1. The exposure is rated medium for this asset because inundation under the 55 inches + 100-yearSWEL SLR scenario would be about 1 foot. There would be no impact on the station at 16 inches+ 100-year SWEL, except for potential wind wave impacts by midcentury. The railroad trackswould be affected under the 16 inches + 100-year SWEL scenario. Given the minor impacts atmidcentury, these could likely be mitigated with little intervention, if any.

2. During the study, limited information was available on sensitivity for this asset. More informationshould be obtained to investigate if implementation of any adaptation measure could go alongwith scheduled maintenance or construction.

3. The adaptive capacity is inadequate, with the nearest station along the line (Emeryville) located 4miles away. This means that adaptation of the asset or the shoreline protecting it is necessary.

4. Consequence is rated moderate for time to rebuild and commuter use and low for all otherconsiderations. The overall consequence rating makes the station a low-risk asset. This couldimply that temporary closure might be an option.

5. Shoreline System 3 protects the Amtrak station. Although the shoreline would be overtopped at16 inches + 100-year SWEL, this overtopping would result in minimal inundation on land in thevicinity of the asset and no inundation at the asset. At 55 inches + 100-year SWEL, theovertopping of the shoreline would be significant, with an average overtopping depth of 2.6 feetand more than 20,000 feet of the shoreline overtopped.

Many other assets are protected by Shoreline System 3, including 7th Street Highway and RailroadPumps (55 inches), Capitol Corridor Norcal O&M Yard, Burlington Northern Santa Fe InternationalGateway Intermodal Yard, Jack London Square Ferry Terminal, elevated BART line (Transbay Tube andOakland Wye). However, not all these assets would be inundated from shoreline overtopping close to thistrain station.

Table 7.4 provides an overview of potential suggested adaptation measures for the Oakland Jack LondonSquare Amtrak Station. These measures are described in more detail in the paragraphs below.


Table 7.4 Potential Suggested Adaptation Strategies for the Oakland Jack London Square AmtrakStation

Midcentury End-of-CenturyAdaptation of asset - Limited impacts – consider revising

asset management plans toincorporate considerations of end ofthe century impacts

- Improve drainage- Retrofit – make waterproof- Temporary closure- Raise station and/or track- Relocation

Regional adaptation (alongShoreline System 3)

- Limited impacts – consider revisingshoreline protection plans toincorporate considerations of end ofthe century impacts

- Construct floodwall- Build levee- Integrate flood protection in urban

fabricNonstructural adaptation - Temporary closure

- Providing alternative mode oftransportation

- Abandoning the asset and notreplacing it

- New building and design codes- Revision of planning guidance and

policy

- Continue implementation andrevision of nonstructural adaptationmeasures as needed

ASSET-SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONThere would be very little impact on the Oakland Jack London Square Amtrak Station under themidcentury SLR scenario, apart from possible wind wave effects. Therefore, the range of potentialadaptation measures focuses on the end-of-century SLR scenario. Minor modifications to the asset canbe made in an opportunistic manner during scheduled maintenance to mitigate for future inundation toimprove resilience to flooding.

Improve drainage – The drainage system around the station could be improved so that wheninundation occurs, the station itself might not be affected, or at least would be only temporarily closed.Improved drainage would enhance the resiliency of the station and would drain off floodwater morequickly.

Retrofit – Modifications to entrances of the station would minimize the volume of floodwater that mightinundate the station, and placing water-sensitive elements (such as wiring and electronics) above acertain flood elevation would minimize damage in the event of flooding. Temporary closure of thestation might still be required under this measure.

Raise railroad track and/or station – The station and the railroad tracks could be raised above thelevel of inundation. However, raising the railroad track adequately might be difficult or very expensivebecause many other transportation assets (e.g., bridges) cross the tracks, and adequate clearancesmust be maintained.

Conduct partial or temporary closure – A nonstructural/management option during extreme eventscould be to close part or all of the station. (The level of service required would determine whether thisadaptation response is considered adequate.) It is unlikely that recurring closure would beacceptable. In the case of such closures, passengers using the station could be served at adjacentstations (e.g., Emeryville or Oakland Coliseum), or “bus bridges” could connect passengers travelingto/from the Jack London Square area with trains at other locations. An alternative route for goodstraffic is less readily available.


REGIONAL ADAPTATIONRegional adaptation for the Oakland Jack London Square Amtrak Station and tracks would meanprotecting the area around Jack London Square and the Lake Merritt Channel:

Construct permanent or temporary floodwall/barrier – With the heavily developed and engineeredwaterfront at Jack London Square, there is limited space available to construct flood protection.Temporary or permanent floodwalls or barriers that have a small footprint could be considered.Temporary barriers could be used as an early adaptation measure and installed, with properforecasting, before a storm event. Permanent floodwalls could be considered as a measure for thelonger term and could be integrated into the design of the waterfront.

Build levee – The waterfront of Jack London Square is not suitable for the construction of a levee.Levees could be considered along the Lake Merritt Channel but could significantly affect therecreational values along the Lake Merritt Connector Trail. With this measure, raising of the railroadtracks at the channel might still be needed.

Integrate flood protection into the urban fabric – As the waterfront of Jack London Square is renewedand redeveloped over the next decades, building codes could be modified so that new developmentalong the waterfront (e.g., residential or commercial) also serves as flood protection barrier andbecomes an integrated part of a flood protection system.

NONSTRUCTURAL ADAPTATIONDue to its low level of use, more nonstructural measures are possible for this asset than for the BayBridge (R-12). Measures that can be taken at this asset include:

Temporary closure – If the area surrounding the station is temporarily inundated and the tracks arestill operable, then temporary closure of the station can be an option.

Providing an alternative mode of transportation – Along with the measure above passengers can beoffered a different mode of transportation (to get to the Emeryville station for example). Providing analternative for goods movement that passes through the station is considered less viable.

Abandoning the asset – If the inundation impacts are too great and the capital expense to modify theasset is not justified, abandoning the station could be considered.

Revision of building codes and design guidance – To enable the implementation of structuralmeasures, such as improving drainage, raising the railroad tracks or making the station itself moreresilient to flooding or providing design guidance or alternative building codes can be considered toensure future use of the station.

Policies and jurisdiction – With the location of the station in a heavily urbanized area and with manygovernment agencies involved that are responsible for transportation, land use planning and floodprotection, all with overlapping responsibilities, it will be difficult to make specific policy changesrelated to flood management/SLR geared to this asset alone . Regional coordination will be needed toaccommodate this.

7.4.3 NONSTRUCTURAL REGIONAL ADAPTATION MEASURESAn integrated regional adaptation strategy also should involve nonstructural regional measures. Some ofthe regional nonstructural measures relevant for both the example assets that could be considered bytransportation and planning agencies in developing SLR adaptation plans include:


Stakeholder and community awareness and input – To gain critical public understanding of, andsupport for, implementation of climate change adaptation plans, public education and outreach couldbe conducted. Stakeholder input is also essential to help identify and shape the most appropriateadaptation measures for a given asset and location, particularly if the measure may have regionalimpacts. Outreach also provides an opportunity to explain how local planning decisions should beinformed by detailed risk and vulnerability assessments to ensure the prioritization of actions. Theseefforts help to create greater awareness and a more resilient community.

Increased technical knowledge and capacity – To allow agencies to better understand the impacts ofclimate change and the different options for adaptation, further research and education is needed.Building up the level of knowledge and technical capacity through research and education wouldallow for development of new climate change adaptation plans and smoother implementation.

Planning and policy making – This option was also discussed as part of the asset-specific measures.However, many planning and policy-making decisions are made at the regional level and then appliedat the local level or in this case, to specific assets. Many existing government policies do not yet takeSLR into account and need to do so. This applies to planning policy and guidance documents,building codes, design standards, and zoning requirements, for example. California and the Bay Area,in particular, however, are quite progressive when it comes to addressing climate change issues andare leaders in the United States. This is demonstrated, for example, by the Ocean Protection CouncilGuidance on SLR, California Department of Transportation guidance on SLR, and the recent BayPlan Amendment of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The BayPlan Amendment requires new development along the bay potentially affected by 16 inches of SLR toconduct a vulnerability assessment and, if vulnerable, clearly describe the economic and/or ecologicalbenefits of the project. For transportation planning, local and regional entities will be looking forguidance from other regional and state organizations on how to incorporate climate change intoplanning.

Funding – Funding is needed to conduct further vulnerability assessments and adaptation planninganalyses and implement climate change adaptation plans for both example assets. Adapting to risingtides will inevitably bring additional costs to their capital improvement projects. Funding can be soughtthrough traditional mechanisms, but also new funding methods could be considered, such as throughpublic private partnerships and new or other user fees. Planning proactively for SLR now shouldavoid major unexpected costs in the future. In addition, being prepared for the risk of climate changeshould attract new investments and make the Bay Area more competitive compared to other regionsaround the world.

New and innovative partnerships – To research, fund, and implement climate change adaptationplanning, new partnerships should be fostered to explore and establish cooperation among researchinstitutions, governments, nonprofit organizations, and business entities to prepare for climatechange. This can involve public private partnerships, in which a new commercial or residentialdevelopment funds (part of) the climate change adaptation measures protecting a larger area. Thebusiness community can potentially take the lead in driving the climate adaptation debate and spurgovernment and related agencies to take proactive measures to keep the region competitive. Thiscould involve new partnerships to share knowledge and expertise on climate adaptation becausemany other regions will be affected by SLR.


7.5 Next Steps in Adaptation PlanningThis chapter provides preliminary suggestions for potential climate change adaptation measures for theAlameda County subregion, but this is only the first step in developing an adaptation plan. The wealth ofinformation that has been generated in this pilot project can be more thoroughly analyzed for all theselected representative assets to inform further decision making on adaptation measures. Stakeholderconsultation will be a vital part of this process. The Adapting to Rising Tides program will take the outputsfrom this study to inform the 2012 and 2013 adaptation planning efforts for all sectors within thesubregion. As it specifically relates to transportation planning, the following potential projects arerecommended:

Prepare further vulnerability and risk assessments of some of the transportation assets that could notbe included in this study because of time and budget constraints, using the methodology developedas part of the pilot project and drawing on the new inundation mapping. In addition, a more in-depthanalysis of the inundation mapping and shoreline overtopping information for specific transportationassets could be carried out to better understand the potential impacts under different storm scenariosand to inform the selection of adaptation measures.

Conduct a more detailed alternatives analysis and feasibility study of different climate changeadaptation measures at selected locations, reviewing all the criteria (relative to economy, ecology,equity, and governance) outlined in Table 7.1 This study could be accompanied by visualizations ofadaptation measures under different SLR scenarios. These results can then be discussed withstakeholders to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions.

Conduct traffic flow and economic impact analyses to understand the primary and secondary effectsof reduced mobility in the Bay Area attributable to SLR inundation of transportation assets.

Ensure that all assets due for upgrade, repair, or retrofit in the near future are reviewed for adaptationopportunities, particularly in terms of new materials, drainage, and waterproofing improvements.

Develop a SLR or climate change preparedness plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Commissionthat serves as a guidance document for local and other regional transportation agencies on how theycan incorporate SLR into their own transportation planning.

7.6 ReferencesCalifornia Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, a Report to the

Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Available:http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009-027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-F.PDF.

San Francisco Bay: Preparing for the Next Level (BCDC 2009)

Stralberg D, Brennan M, Callaway JC, Wood JK, Schile LM, et al. (2011) Evaluating Tidal MarshSustainability in the Face of Sea-Level Rise: A Hybrid Modeling Approach Applied to SanFrancisco Bay. PLoS ONE 6(11)

Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-Level rise & Coastal Land Use How Governments Can Use Land Use Practicesto Adapt to Sea Level Rise. (Georgetown Climate Centre 2011)

Date post:	20-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Adaptation Planning - mtc.ca.gov€¦ · Adaptation planning is not part of the Federal Highway...

Documents